Smoking 'To Be Banned'

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Delayed said:

>>Chekhov said : It's not just about the smoking ban, it's about the whole authoritarian culture which is pervading modern society.

It makes me happy I'll be dead in 30 years or so, because I assure you it will keep getting worse, for ever. I feel so sorry for my lad who will have to live in such a society.<<

 

Yes everyone gets it by now. You only have 1 point to make and make it in nearly every thread you contribute to or start. 

It's not even in place and knowing Rishi it will get scrapped if he clings onto th PM role. 

>>Yes everyone gets it by now. You only have 1 point to make and make it in nearly every thread you contribute to or start. <<

 

That's because this authoritarian attitude affects, err, just about everything in life

 

>>It's not even in place and knowing Rishi it will get scrapped if he clings onto th PM role.<<

 

I hope you're right. But what frightens me is that if the supposedly more Libertarian Tories were proposing this, then the more authoritarian Labour lot may well run with it.

Actually, maybe they won't ? I am sure they'd love to enact it, it's just the kind of thing they'd lap up, but it would be interesting to know if a higher proportion of Labour voters smoke them Tory voters ?

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

I could understand it better if they,  at least,   did it properly.    Why no seatbelts on buses or trains ?

We must wear them in cars whilst on buses and trains,  you are not only are excused wearing seat belts,  but it's OK to stand up too.

Just doesn't make sense   as government edicts usually don't.

Seat belts make less difference to survival in a coach crash, and buses even less as they don't tend to go as fast anyway. And, because trains rarely crash, seatbelts would be more or less a waste of time. In fact, if enforcing the use of seat belts in trains put even 1% of travellers off going by train and instead put them on the (much more dangerous) roads, then the policy would actually cost lives.

Having said that, with the direction we are travelling in (an over protective state) it is almost certain that sooner or later seatbelts will be mandated on coaches. Maybe even on trains too, sooner or later.  The latter would mean no standing allowed though, so how would that work ?

Edited October 5, 2023 by Chekhov

[Chekhov]

3 hours ago, Prettytom said:

Try to explain without telling me what you think it is that I think. Your continual, incorrect representations of my opinions,  are both dishonest and tiresome.

I have asked you this multiple times.

I have stated more than once that you have NEVER argued against any ban. regulation, restriction etc on people freedoms. Never. In fact you have argued in favour of pretty much every single one. Everything from Covid masks to parents being banned from videoing their own kids racing at galas.

So, prove me wrong, which regulation or restriction on people's lives do you not approve of ?

Excluding speed limits which you, rather ironically, seem to think should not be enforced , or at least you are not in favour of GPS speed limiters.

[Prettytom]

24 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I have asked you this multiple times.

I have stated more than once that you have NEVER argued against any ban. regulation, restriction etc on people freedoms. Never. In fact you have argued in favour of pretty much every single one. Everything from Covid masks to parents being banned from videoing their own kids racing at galas.

So, prove me wrong, which regulation or restriction on people's lives do you not approve of ?

Excluding speed limits which you, rather ironically, seem to think should not be enforced , or at least you are not in favour of GPS speed limiters.

Why is heroin illegal?

 

Why do you support that?

 

Please try to explain without swerving the question , or inventing opinions for me.

[hauxwell]

2 hours ago, hackey lad said:

Or lofts 

Yes and lofts.  I forgot about lofts.

 

 

 

[Delayed]

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

>>Yes everyone gets it by now. You only have 1 point to make and make it in nearly every thread you contribute to or start. <<

 

That's because this authoritarian attitude affects, err, just about everything in life

Slight exaggeration there deeming talk of ban to everything being controlled. 

2 hours ago, Chekhov said:

 

>>It's not even in place and knowing Rishi it will get scrapped if he clings onto th PM role.<<

I hope you're right. But what frightens me

You're seriously scared about a politician talking about banning something that doesn't even affect you?

 

And apparently I'm the one hiding behind his settee

[Chekhov]

2 hours ago, Prettytom said:

>>Chekhov said : I have asked you this multiple times.

I have stated more than once that you have NEVER argued against any ban. regulation, restriction etc on people freedoms. Never. In fact you have argued in favour of pretty much every single one. Everything from Covid masks to parents being banned from videoing their own kids racing at galas.

So, prove me wrong, which regulation or restriction on people's lives do you not approve of ?

Excluding speed limits which you, rather ironically, seem to think should not be enforced , or at least you are not in favour of GPS speed limiters.<<

 

Why is heroin illegal?

Why do you support that?

Please try to explain without swerving the question , or inventing opinions for me.

I will answer, just to show you up, because you keep accusing me of "making stuff up about you", yet when I ask you to provide evidence to contradict my assertions about you, you never answer. 

 

Heroin should be illegal because it is a proportionate response for a very dangerous drug.

Similarly speed limits are a proportionate response to try and limit deaths from driving.

On the other hand, banning parents from videoing their kids racing on galas, or at school functions, is DISproportionate. As is a ban on cigarettes.

 

Proportionate is a word authoritarians seldom use.

 

[Prettytom]

48 minutes ago, Chekhov said:

I will answer, just to show you up, because you keep accusing me of "making stuff up about you", yet when I ask you to provide evidence to contradict my assertions about you, you never answer. 

 

Heroin should be illegal because it is a proportionate response for a very dangerous drug.

Similarly speed limits are a proportionate response to try and limit deaths from driving.

On the other hand, banning parents from videoing their kids racing on galas, or at school functions, is DISproportionate. As is a ban on cigarettes.

 

Proportionate is a word authoritarians seldom use.

 

Why is it proportionate? Heroin has killed far fewer people than smoking. Smoking also affects non smokers and kills some of them. It causes fatal and non-fatal illnesses. Nicotine is an incredibly addictive drug. Cigarettes are extremely dangerous things.

 

It is logically inconsistent to defend the legal statuses of heroin and tobacco in terms of danger.

 

Now, let’s move on.

 

 Should cannabis be legal?

 

Try to justify your answer without inventing opinions, or insulting labels for me. 

[RollingJ]

4 hours ago, Chekhov said:

Seat belts make less difference to survival in a coach crash, and buses even less as they don't tend to go as fast anyway. And, because trains rarely crash, seatbelts would be more or less a waste of time. In fact, if enforcing the use of seat belts in trains put even 1% of travellers off going by train and instead put them on the (much more dangerous) roads, then the policy would actually cost lives.

Having said that, with the direction we are travelling in (an over protective state) it is almost certain that sooner or later seatbelts will be mandated on coaches. Maybe even on trains too, sooner or later.  The latter would mean no standing allowed though, so how would that work ?

They are mandatory on coaches - have been for many years.

[Tipstaff]

5 hours ago, RollingJ said:

They are mandatory on coaches - have been for many years.

They are fitted on all new coaches, but you will not be fined for not wearing one.